Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!i2pn.org!i2pn2.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Richard Damon <richard@damon-family.org>
Newsgroups: comp.theory
Subject: Re: Incorrect requirements --- Computing the mapping from the input
 to HHH(DD)
Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 15:25:06 -0400
Organization: i2pn2 (i2pn.org)
Message-ID: <83c7f667963d8fffabc66cf3281d5905fcbef5fa@i2pn2.org>
References: <vv97ft$3fg66$1@dont-email.me> <vvgr22$1ag3a$2@dont-email.me>
 <vvgt36$1auqp$2@dont-email.me> <vvgtbe$1b0li$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvguot$1auqp$3@dont-email.me> <vvh0t2$1b939$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhap5$1hp80$1@dont-email.me> <vvhf20$1ihs9$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvhfnd$1hvei$3@dont-email.me> <vvil99$1ugd5$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvinvp$1vglb$1@dont-email.me> <vviv75$222r6$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvj1fp$22a62$1@dont-email.me> <vvj2j6$23gk7$1@dont-email.me>
 <as9TP.251456$lZjd.93653@fx05.ams4> <87msbmeo3b.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjcge$27753$2@dont-email.me> <vvjeqf$28555$1@dont-email.me>
 <vvjffg$28g5i$1@dont-email.me> <875xiaejzg.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjgt1$28g5i$5@dont-email.me> <87jz6qczja.fsf@nosuchdomain.example.com>
 <vvjotc$28g5i$12@dont-email.me>
 <vvnh9u$3hd96$1@raubtier-asyl.eternal-september.org>
 <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 10 May 2025 19:26:31 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: i2pn2.org;
	logging-data="3982151"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@i2pn2.org";
	posting-account="diqKR1lalukngNWEqoq9/uFtbkm5U+w3w6FQ0yesrXg";
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vvno4e$3in62$2@dont-email.me>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0

On 5/10/25 10:33 AM, olcott wrote:
> On 5/10/2025 7:37 AM, Bonita Montero wrote:
>> Am 09.05.2025 um 04:22 schrieb olcott:
>>
>>> Look at their replies to this post.
>>> Not a one of them will agree that
>>>
>>> void DDD()
>>> {
>>>    HHH(DDD);
>>>    return; // final halt state
>>> }
>>>
>>> When 1 or more instructions of DDD are correctly
>>> simulated by HHH then the correctly simulated DDD cannot
>>> possibly reach its "return" instruction (final halt state).
>>>
>>> They have consistently disagreed with this
>>> simple point for three years.
>>
>> I guess that not even a professor of theoretical computer
>> science would spend years working on so few lines of code.
>>
> 
> I created a whole x86utm operating system.
> It correctly determines that the halting problem's
> otherwise "impossible" input is actually non halting.

No it doen't

> 
> int DD()
> {
>    int Halt_Status = HHH(DD);
>    if (Halt_Status)
>      HERE: goto HERE;
>    return Halt_Status;
> }
> 
> https://github.com/plolcott/x86utm
> 

int main() {
   DD();
  }

shows that DD will halt.

I guess you think lies are valid logic, and that strawman requirements 
are valid changes.

Sorry, you are just proving your ustter stupidity.